Hatrack River Forum: OSC Reviews 3D

This is topic OSC Reviews 3D in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=056898

Posted by RSAvenell (Member # 12317) on :

I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind on 3D - the current boost of 3D movies is startling, and slightly annoying. But I would like to ask Orson Scott Card to at least give 3D a little more opportunity.

I have often checked the site in hope of reading OSC's review of Avatar, and his thoughts of the 3D technology displayed in that film. Please note, Avatar was shot using a very special 3D camera. Alice in Wonderland is fake 3D crated in post production. The same process is being used to transfer other new and older films into 3D (Clash of the Titans, and Titanic for example).

The 3D seen in Avatar was really quite amazing, and I'm disappointed that Mr. Card never posted a review of this film. Story problems with Avatar set aside, the scientific world displayed in 3D is very reminiscent of the worlds he created in the Ender universe, and I would have liked to read his thoughts on that 3D - not this "fake 3D."

What do the rest of you think? I agree this 3D thing is wearing out it's welcome - and quickly - but this is because people are shoehorning in a sub-par product to take advantage of the success of Avatar.

Please, Mr. Card - with all of the films you see, and review for this site, why have you never reviewed the new box office champion? You could at least appreciate the science of the film, and many of us would be interested in your take on the film just from that perspective.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

I think I agree with OSC on one thing: you should only use 3D on films where a fantastical world and special effects are more important that the story. The corollary to this, though, which I seem to be alone on, is that in such movies, I WANT to have giant splashy 3D effects thrown at me that make me go WOAH!!! I don't care if they break immersion. They are awesome. But Hollywood has decided to pursue this course of "immersive 3d", which as OSC points out, is kind of an oxymoron.

Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :

RSAvenell, I understand your comment, and there may be some discussion on this here on this side of the board, but OSC hasn't posted on this side of the board in a long time, and nobody knows if he reads the posts over here or not. If you want to have a question answered by him, your best chance would be to post this on the other side of the board. He doesn't post often over there either, but you still have a better chance of him reading and responding to your question over there than you do over here.

Regarding your comments on how Avatar made 3D popular. Um...no. Not really. Not that Avatar wasn't a blockbuster film, no one is denying that, but 3D has been becoming more popular for a while now. Up was in 3D almost a year ago and there have been other 3D titles between now and then. Avatar may have been the first film to truly explore the genre, but I'm probably never going to understand what movie goers enjoyed about it so much. I didn't see it in theaters 3D or otherwise, but all that I have read indicates that home viewing won't be nearly as good because there will be no way to replicate the theatrical 3D in a home setting. Other films like Up, and hopefully Alice (I plan on seeing it this weekend) will translate better to a home theater setting because the 3D is not an integral part of the viewing experience. Until 3D tvs become popular, and economical 3D is neat, but should not be essential to the viewing experience.

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

From the review:

quote:
But the purpose of two eyes, evolutionarily speaking, is not binocularity, it's redundancy. You can lose an eye and still see. By having two eyes, you double your chance of survival in a world where lack of vision can kill you.

I don't know if this is true. Is the reason for bilateral symmetry the advantage of having two of various parts? Just wondering if someone knows.

Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :

Down with 3D. Give me a holodeck already.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
From the review:

quote:
But the purpose of two eyes, evolutionarily speaking, is not binocularity, it's redundancy. You can lose an eye and still see. By having two eyes, you double your chance of survival in a world where lack of vision can kill you.
I don't know if this is true. Is the reason for bilateral symmetry the advantage of having two of various parts? Just wondering if someone knows.

it is not, actually. the same is true for ears; we don't have two of them for the sake of 'redundancy,' but because just like with stereopsis from two eyes, directional hearing has massive evolutionary benefits.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

Many industry insiders see 3D as the new "talkie" or color film -- they expect it to spread until non-3D becomes the rare exception. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that prediction.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

I dunno. It's ALMOST a sure-shot, but there's also the small matter of the fact that for somewhere between 10 to 20 percent of the overall population (or moviegoers?) get no benefit whatsoever from 3D movies. The effect simply does not work for them.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
From the review:

quote:
But the purpose of two eyes, evolutionarily speaking, is not binocularity, it's redundancy. You can lose an eye and still see. By having two eyes, you double your chance of survival in a world where lack of vision can kill you.
I don't know if this is true. Is the reason for bilateral symmetry the advantage of having two of various parts? Just wondering if someone knows.
it is not, actually. the same is true for ears; we don't have two of them for the sake of 'redundancy,' but because just like with stereopsis from two eyes, directional hearing has massive evolutionary benefits.

Nearly all sorts of "evolution worked this way" is really just so story telling, but it seems reasonable that both are strong evolutionary benefits. Although, I'd say that stereopsis is much more relevant and important than having a spare.

In my just so story, the main reason why bilateral symmetry comes about is that it is a much, much simpler working system in a variety of areas than non-symmetrical ones.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Concerning binocular vision:

If you look at the configuration of prey mammals vs. predator mammals, you'll see that preys, like horses, generally have their eyes on the sides of their heads. This allows them to see nearly 360 degrees, but with very little of that field having any depth perception.

But if you look at predators, like dogs and cats, you'll that their eyes are in the front of their heads, like ours are, giving them binocular vision in the front, and nothing in the back.

One argument is that it is this way so that prey can keep an eye out for predators, and predators can focus better on their prey.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

I don't see 3D becoming near ubiquitous. It aids in creating immersive movies, but a lot of movies either don't need this or could actually be harmed by it. I think it's an expensive process that is good for what it is good at, which is enhancing the experience of a subset of movies.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I dunno. It's ALMOST a sure-shot, but there's also the small matter of the fact that for somewhere between 10 to 20 percent of the overall population (or moviegoers?) get no benefit whatsoever from 3D movies. The effect simply does not work for them.

I saw Avatar 3D. It was the first 3D movie I ever saw. I could certainly perceive the 3D-ness of the movie.

It just didn't do much for me. I don't know if I'd ever be interested in spending money on it again.

Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Concerning binocular vision:

If you look at the configuration of prey mammals vs. predator mammals, you'll see that preys, like horses, generally have their eyes on the sides of their heads. This allows them to see nearly 360 degrees, but with very little of that field having any depth perception.

But if you look at predators, like dogs and cats, you'll that their eyes are in the front of their heads, like ours are, giving them binocular vision in the front, and nothing in the back.

One argument is that it is this way so that prey can keep an eye out for predators, and predators can focus better on their prey.

There's also the matter of brachiation. If that's your primary means of locomotion, good depth perception is pretty important.

Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
From the review:

quote:
But the purpose of two eyes, evolutionarily speaking, is not binocularity, it's redundancy. You can lose an eye and still see. By having two eyes, you double your chance of survival in a world where lack of vision can kill you.
I don't know if this is true. Is the reason for bilateral symmetry the advantage of having two of various parts? Just wondering if someone knows.
it is not, actually. the same is true for ears; we don't have two of them for the sake of 'redundancy,' but because just like with stereopsis from two eyes, directional hearing has massive evolutionary benefits.
Nearly all sorts of "evolution worked this way" is really just so story telling, but it seems reasonable that both are strong evolutionary benefits. Although, I'd say that stereopsis is much more relevant and important than having a spare.

In my just so story, the main reason why bilateral symmetry comes about is that it is a much, much simpler working system in a variety of areas than non-symmetrical ones.

An amusing quality to OSC's articles is how one is unfailingly shown that OSC's personal preferences should, in fact, be universally held. In this case, no less an authority than evolution itself backs it up.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Nearly all sorts of "evolution worked this way" is really just so story telling, but it seems reasonable that both are strong evolutionary benefits. Although, I'd say that stereopsis is much more relevant and important than having a spare.

We're wired to take great advantage of steropsis as well as directional hearing. The measure of the importance of both of them are integrally factored in to how our brain instinctively responds. We will startle reflexively to the sudden inclusion of dimensional optics on an otherwise flat plane, and we'll react with an instinctual component to the direction of sound.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Many industry insiders see 3D as the new "talkie" or color film -- they expect it to spread until non-3D becomes the rare exception. I think there's a lot of evidence to support that prediction.

If that's true, I think it's also likely that people will start bringing their own glasses rather than paying an extra dollar every time they go to the theater.

edit: I wonder if theaters will respond by refusing to let personal 3d glasses enter their theaters.

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :

Right now I don't think you get to "save money" by bringing your own glasses. For that matter, most theaters don't let you keep glasses. The extra money is to pay for the expense of installing a 3d theatre in the first place.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

*nod* The dollar isn't for the glasses.

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

I hear talk already of 3D that won't require glasses. I don't know how viable it is.

Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :

It is viable! Look out your window! [Smile]

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I hear talk already of 3D that won't require glasses.

As have I. I think it's still a few years off though.

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:

quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I hear talk already of 3D that won't require glasses.
As have I. I think it's still a few years off though.

When they get there, I might give 3D another chance. Right now, my left eye goes out of focus and I get a headache. I also found with Bolt that I could only focus on one "layer" of the 3D at a time, so I saw less of the screen at any given time than I did with 2D.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

You people all have weird eyes.

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
It is viable! Look out your window!

It burned me. [Frown]

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :

Apparently the glasses-less 3d display screens on the horizon use lenticular lenses similar to the ones used on crackerjack prizes and credit card holograms. That'll be interesting.

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Concerning binocular vision:

If you look at the configuration of prey mammals vs. predator mammals, you'll see that preys, like horses, generally have their eyes on the sides of their heads. This allows them to see nearly 360 degrees, but with very little of that field having any depth perception.

But if you look at predators, like dogs and cats, you'll that their eyes are in the front of their heads, like ours are, giving them binocular vision in the front, and nothing in the back.

One argument is that it is this way so that prey can keep an eye out for predators, and predators can focus better on their prey.

This was my first thought. I think I read something about this recently, but I can't remember where.

As for 3d without glasses, Nintendo just announced that the next DS (due out this summer I think) will accomplish exactly this.

Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RSAvenell:
I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind on 3D - the current boost of 3D movies is startling, and slightly annoying. But I would like to ask Orson Scott Card to at least give 3D a little more opportunity.

I have often checked the site in hope of reading OSC's review of Avatar, and his thoughts of the 3D technology displayed in that film. Please note, Avatar was shot using a very special 3D camera. Alice in Wonderland is fake 3D crated in post production. The same process is being used to transfer other new and older films into 3D (Clash of the Titans, and Titanic for example).

The 3D seen in Avatar was really quite amazing, and I'm disappointed that Mr. Card never posted a review of this film. Story problems with Avatar set aside, the scientific world displayed in 3D is very reminiscent of the worlds he created in the Ender universe, and I would have liked to read his thoughts on that 3D - not this "fake 3D."

What do the rest of you think? I agree this 3D thing is wearing out it's welcome - and quickly - but this is because people are shoehorning in a sub-par product to take advantage of the success of Avatar.

Please, Mr. Card - with all of the films you see, and review for this site, why have you never reviewed the new box office champion? You could at least appreciate the science of the film, and many of us would be interested in your take on the film just from that perspective.

I was disappointed that he didn't review Avatar either. I think the movie mad him mad because there were parts of Speaker in the story (stretches, but yes) and that most sci-fi books have dealt with politically messy alien contact in a much richer fashion.

It's a shame, because it's worthy of analysis in its own right.